School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Dec 18;23(1):1430. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10354-5.
The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions.
The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts.
We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics.
We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.
医疗干预措施与背景之间的关系被广泛认为涉及随着时间的推移而发生的复杂和动态相互作用。然而,复杂健康干预措施的评估往往未能调动这种复杂性,而是将背景和干预措施报告为具体化和划定的类别。这就提出了关于塑造背景知识的实践问题,这对我们在研究中可见的人和物产生了影响。通过案例研究的视角,我们利用为 Triple C 研究(专注于案例研究、背景和复杂干预措施)收集的数据,对这些实践进行了批判,并呼吁在复杂健康干预措施评估中对背景概念进行系统的变革。
Triple C 研究由医学研究理事会资助,旨在制定考虑背景和复杂性的案例研究指导和报告原则。作为该研究的一部分,与从事案例研究、评估、出版、资助和制定政策和实践的人员一起举办了为期一天的研讨会,并对其中 58 名参与者进行了九次访谈。讨论重点是如何在复杂健康干预措施的案例研究评估中概念化和操作化背景。分析重点关注背景与复杂干预措施以及塑造参与者叙述的更广泛社会力量之间的不同构建和联系。
我们发现,背景知识的产生实践受到认识论和政治力量的影响,表现为:在表达复杂性和描述清晰度之间存在紧张关系;背景概念化与所使用的方法之间存在本体论(不)一致性;在与资助者、期刊、政策制定者和公众交流时,背景的具体化版本受到了青睐。
我们认为,复杂健康干预措施的评估迫切需要广泛反思如何调动背景——由资助者、卫生服务研究人员、期刊编辑和政策制定者来调动。与学者在不同学科中处理复杂性和背景的方式相联系,为创造性地扩展健康评估领域提供了机会,使长期存在的传统具有批判性立场,并为复杂健康干预措施评估的设计创新开辟了可能性。